Intel HD 3000 wow...

[charpi]

Sorry I just skimmed thru this thread and I don't think that this has been posted before. For people playing SC2, here are some concrete FPS. Taken from a Samsung 9 series user.

Now - StarCraft 2. I only play SC2. No Call of Duty, Crysis...etc. So I only have FPS for StarCraft 2.

The game is unplayable with Medium Shaders. Don't even try. I tried... and also tried to convince myself that i was possible, but no. :-(. With medium settings / shaders, the multiplayer game started at 15 FPS.

On the lowest settings (everything on low), the game IS *mostly* playable in the native resolution.

Let me explain.
On 1v1, the game starts at 40-50 FPS.
After a few building are constructed and you have a few units, the game drops to 35-40 FPS.
During mid game, the game hovers around 30 FPS.
When a big battle occurs, the game stalls on an average of 20-25 FPS. The lowest I've seen was 17 FPS.

Now, I would argue that during a 30 minute game, the average FPS only dips below 25 FPS (my threshold of playability) towards the late game when big battles occur. The lag is noticable. However, I would say this only happens in 5 to 10 minutes of the game.

With 4v4, the game starts at 35-40 FPS.
After the early game (from mid-game onwards), the FPS hovers in the 20s-30 FPS.
Any type of battle dips the FPS to around 20s.

So is the game playable? Yes, for the most part. 4v4 is a little laggy for me since ALL scirmishes have perceptable lag. 1v1 works well (again, lag is only perceivable at the end during BIG battles). I tried playing at a lower resolution, but FPS were comparable.

taken from

http://forum.notebookreview.com/samsung/545538-samsung-9-series-laptop-zx310-900x3a-unveiled-77.html

all credits go to the guy who posted it, he is using the i5-2537M processor tho, if the rumors are true, we might be getting the better versions,

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1173855/

so it will probably be slightly better.

Fingers crossed

 

[Hellhammer]

You still don't seem to get it, I don't need to read a forum to find out about how the 13" MBP performs, I'm sitting in front of one right now...

Intel's just released the new ULV chips for June, the 2677M and 2637M, we already know exactly what they are, they run at 350Mhz base clock and 1200Mhz full clock. The MPB i5 runs at 1100Mhz while the MBP i7 runs at 1300Mhz.

Here they are right here:
http://ark.intel.com/products/54617/Intel-Core-i7-2677M-Processor-(4M-Cache-1_70-GHz)
http://ark.intel.com/products/54618/Intel-Core-i7-2637M-Processor-(4M-Cache-1_60-GHz)

All Sandy Bridge chips, no matter whether they are normal, low voltage, or ultra low voltage use the exact same HD 3000 design, with 12 execution units. The only difference is the clockspeed, and the two new ULV chips have theirs clocked above the current i5 MBP 13" and below the current i7 MBP 13".

The stated Turbo Boost figure is theoretical, it's very unlikely that the chip will achieve it under normal circumstances. Here are some benchmarks of ULV vs SV chips and there is clearly a difference (click "benchmarks and specifications" to see individual scores for each CPU). Sure, it's the old chip with slower Turbo but honestly, I doubt the faster Turbo will make much, if any difference at all.

 

[dsio]

The stated Turbo Boost figure is theoretical, it's very unlikely that the chip will achieve it under normal circumstances. Here are some benchmarks of ULV vs SV chips and there is clearly a difference (click "benchmarks and specifications" to see individual scores for each CPU). Sure, it's the old chip with slower Turbo but honestly, I doubt the faster Turbo will make much, if any difference at all.

They're not theoretical, the design allows for max GPU clock offset by reduced CPU usage in GPU intensive applications, Intel has publicly available whitepapers on the topic that explain the logic behind it.

There is a difference between the SV and ULV in outright speed, that's already seen in the specifications set out for the new chips, but they're still only 8W below the SV i5, we're not talking about Atom power here, the difference quite simply isn't that much.

 

[Hellhammer]

They're not theoretical, the design allows for max GPU clock offset by reduced CPU usage in GPU intensive applications, Intel has publicly available whitepapers on the topic that explain the logic behind it.

There are four factors:

• Number of active cores
• Estimated current consumption
• Estimated power consumption
• Processor temperature

http://www.intel.com/technology/turboboost/index.htm

It's theoretical because there is no way Intel can guarantee that the maximum Turbo can be achieved in all configurations. Why? Because the cooling may not be effective enough. Turbo will only work if the thermals allow that. If you want an example, see this. It's for CPU but the same applies for the IGP.

That's why it doesn't necessarily mean that the new ULVs are any faster than the older ones because in the worst case scenario, they will never even exceed the maximum Turbo of the old chip.

 

[dsio]

There are four factors:

• Number of active cores
• Estimated current consumption
• Estimated power consumption
• Processor temperature

http://www.intel.com/technology/turboboost/index.htm

It's theoretical because there is no way Intel can guarantee that the maximum Turbo can be achieved in all configurations. Why? Because the cooling may not be effective enough. Turbo will only work if the thermals allow that. If you want an example, see this. It's for CPU but the same applies for the IGP.

That's why it doesn't necessarily mean that the new ULVs are any faster than the older ones because in the worst case scenario, they will never even exceed the maximum Turbo of the old chip.

The old Macbook Air with its Core2duo had a 17W processor, in addition to a separate discrete graphics core that needed cooling with a TDP of around 10W (we don't know the exact figures for the 320M but all estimates have put it in the 10-12W range). It would be rather unlikely that they made the cooling on the new air dramatically less effective than the previous generation.

When you factor in the relatively small size of the graphics core (by transistor count it is only one sixth of the die) and the comparatively low clock speed of 1300Mhz at its peak, its the CPU cores that are the real meat in the pie, not the graphics core.

 

[Hellhammer]

The old Macbook Air with its Core2duo had a 17W processor, in addition to a separate discrete graphics core that needed cooling with a TDP of around 10W (we don't know the exact figures for the 320M but all estimates have put it in the 10-12W range). It would be rather unlikely that they made the cooling on the new air dramatically less effective than the previous generation.

When you factor in the relatively small size of the graphics core (by transistor count it is only one sixth of the die) and the comparatively low clock speed of 1300Mhz at its peak, its the CPU cores that are the real meat in the pie, not the graphics core.

I guess you didn't even read the link:

Intel Turbo Boost Technology 2.0 allows the processor to operate at a power level that is higher than its rated upper power limit (TDP) for short durations to maximize performance.

http://www.intel.com/technology/turboboost/index.htm

Apple also has a history of throttling CPUs.

I'm not saying that it's impossible for the IGP to hit the maximum Turbo in next gen MBA but saying that there will be no loss at all from ULV CPU because the Turbo speeds are similar is just speculation. Until the new MBAs are here, we don't know for sure but I would guess that we won't see MBA achieving the full Turbo, but that is just my guess.

 

[striker33]

Sorry I just skimmed thru this thread and I don't think that this has been posted before. For people playing SC2, here are some concrete FPS. Taken from a Samsung 9 series user.



taken from

http://forum.notebookreview.com/samsung/545538-samsung-9-series-laptop-zx310-900x3a-unveiled-77.html

all credits go to the guy who posted it, he is using the i5-2537M processor tho, if the rumors are true, we might be getting the better versions,

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1173855/

so it will probably be slightly better.

Fingers crossed

If its playable on Windows, and the MBA is getting the better versions, then running SC2 on OS X should be great.

 

[tdurden12]

If mediocre-mid range graphics are really that important then AMD is going to dominate the market with their Fusion Llano chips. They are putting their eggs in the basket that supports a "balanced" CPU + GPU (their cpu is inferior to sandy bridge but the gpu is way better). Intel seems to think it's better to have a super powerful CPU and a crap GPU. Personally I think any non-gamer is going to be better off with the Intel solution. If you aren't gaming, I think people overestimate the need for powerful GPU. Sure, they can do flash acceleration and the occasional texture in photoshop, but the developers haven't really embraced the full potential of opencl. We might all have to come to terms with Apple changing it's mind and deciding, you know what, the GPU actually wasn't that necessary

 

[Nishi100]

I will be disappointed if they get rid of the nvidia graphics card, to and Intel 3000; I prefer a C2D with the 330m, than the Intel HD 3000 and a better a CPU; as I use 3DS Max and After Effects a lot, and the nvidia card would've helped rayfire along (which uses nvidia's physx). Instead, the performance of rayfire will go down, as nvidia's physx doesn't support other GPU's, even though you can still run rayfire (and the Intel is worse). So, I'll wait and then decide, as I won't be doing a lot of rayfire / 3DS Max (I'll be doing a lot of After Effects on it, though) work on the MBA: only on holidays etc. If they switch to a better CPU and Intel GPU, then I'll probably go with last years.